(Swans - February 13, 2006)
Senator Robert Byrd said it best when he stated four years ago that
the Bush administration was the most secretive one he had ever
witnessed in his half-century in the United States Senate. Many of us
know some prominent cases: Cheney's secret Energy Task Force, or the
recent attempt to prevent the media from showing dead bodies from
Hurricane Katrina, or the returning coffins of soldiers killed in the War on Iraq. The Bush administration's clear effort to keep from
the American public the true extent of the American wounded and dead
in Iraq is repulsive, and especially revealing of their near obsession
with concealment, message control, and outright deception.

In the fall of 2003, only six months following Bush's invasion and
occupation of Iraq, the administration began weaving a deliberately-controlled version of reality in Iraq in terms of the number of
wounded. The Pentagon provided the tale, and the Associated Press (AP)
relayed what the Pentagon offered. AP told us that approximately 3,000
soldiers had been wounded, and other major news outlets parroted the figures.

The truth was that as of late fall 2003, approximately 9,000 American
soldiers had been so seriously wounded that they had to be evacuated
to Germany's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, then home to the
States. We know this because of the determination of investigative
reporter Daniel Zwerdling of National Public Radio, who relentlessly
went from pillar to post in Washington before he found military
representatives who were willing to speak the truth. Zwerdling's story
appeared on the program All Things Considered, (1) "Measuring Costs Of
Iraq War," January 7, 2004. That spring, award-winning journalist
Mark Benjamin, then writing for United Press International (UPI),
reported similar numbers but proportionately higher given the later
reporting. He also won acclaim for exposing the gruesome nature of
injuries, and many incidences where soldiers did not receive proper care.

In May of 2004, NBC News originated a program from Landstuhl, and
stated flatly that "over 12,000 American soldiers" had had to be
airlifted to that medical center for care. At the same time, the
administration continued to offer vastly smaller numbers in order to
prevent public alarm.

Since then, of course, there have been countless attacks across Iraq
every week, and the forces of opposition to occupation detail them.
The reporting exposes American casualties only when witnesses have
been on the scene.

The number of wounded has ballooned to perhaps minimally 30,000 -
35,000, and these of course include amputees, soldiers with severe
burns, missing eyes, extreme psychiatric disorders including suicidal
or homicidal behavior, and every casualty known to warfare. The
administration's official count as of early February 2006 is
approximately 16,500. (2)

The apparent strategy of the "information specialists" whom the
administration employs for communication purposes is to present the
news about casualties in limited doses. The limited dose approach
protects Bush and his administration from further fallout on
credibility regarding the Iraq policy.

Sadly, most of our major media compound the distortions by the
administration. Major outlets will completely contradict themselves.
NBC News, for example, the source in spring 2004 of the Landstuhl
examination, ran a story a year ago (February 2005) in which its own
Baghdad correspondent stated that "10,000 Americans" had been wounded in Iraq.

This past September, as prominent a newspaper as The Boston
Globe stated that the number of Americans wounded in Iraq was
14,000. (3) A simple extrapolation from the described work of
Zwerdling, Benjamin, or NBC News' Landstuhl investigation would
underscore the extent of this understatement.

What about the dead?

If the wounded totals are so manifestly understated, the totals for
the dead are equally, if not more so. The political price for a dead
soldier, after all, is much steeper than for a wounded one.

During the week of October 24, 2005, the world's major media, from
CBS News to Al Jazeera, signaled that America had just crossed "the
threshold" of 2,000 dead American soldiers from the Iraq war and
occupation. The administration naturally supported this figure because
it was the ultimate source of it.

The reporting suggested that the experience of utterly false claims
about weapons of mass destruction had yielded no sense of the
necessity to challenge other claims being made by this administration
about this war. A public that should know better accepted the 2,000
figure headlines in newspapers and on television.

This administration apparently believes that it has the freedom to
report the numbers however it wishes because, absent a leak, an
attuned media, or a challenging public, no one will have the means to
discover the truth.

So, on what basis might we conclude that the numbers are significantly
higher? And, what might they really be? The administration's official
count as of early February, 2006, is approximately 2,250. (4)

Here are some means of getting at the truth:

Inference: It is politically far easier to offer the truth over the
wounded than the dead, but we have seen the former distorted so
grossly. It is completely reasonable to conclude that the numbers
offered to the public on those killed have also been utterly
distorted.

The military: Since Vietnam, the military has significantly
improved its ability to save soldiers wounded in war. ABC Evening News
of Sunday, January 29, 2006, stated that advancements in care mean that
only 1 in 11 who is wounded will not survive. If a minimum of 30,000 -
35,000 have been so wounded, the median estimate of the dead from that
count would be between 2,900 and 3,000. If those who are killed
outright are not counted by the military among those "dying from
wounds," the figure, of course, greatly expands.

The forces opposing occupation in Iraq: Every day these forces detail the consequences of attacks and battles across Iraq. The American media does not cover
these to any extent, partly because the military prevents media
coverage and photos from battle scenes, especially where Americans
have been wounded or killed. The opposition details location,
time of day, and the nature of attacks.

While one would assume that the figures provided of Americans killed
must be tempered because they come from sources that are hostile to
America, the detailed reporting of attacks and the use of witnesses
from Iraqi military, police, and civilians on the ground lends credence
to the claims. The sources also often qualify results ("We are unable
to confirm...."). The easiest criticism of the opposition's reporting
rests in its failure to realistically indicate how many of their own
forces have died. It is far more difficult to counter the detailed
nature of their descriptions of American casualties.

Let's take one isolated day to expose what we receive as ordinary
Americans: July 10, 2005. That day is a good choice because there
was total consistency in reporting from one network to another: major
American media reported on only one incident, where four Americans had
escaped a roadside bomb attack with injuries, none life-threatening.
Those representing the resistance reported on this scene according to
fact, and then reported on all other attacks across the country on a
case-by-case basis. The details indicated 49 Americans killed across Iraq.

Even if one were to reduce the reported numbers by 25% in order to
achieve increased objectivity, the numbers of Americans killed between
roadside and mortar attacks, and in fighting in various cities and
towns, far outstrips what the Bush administration is acknowledging.
Reducing the numbers stated for July 10th by 25% leaves 35-40
Americans dead in the course of one isolated day. Yet all that we
heard was that four Americans had escaped death during one attack.

July 10, 2005 is a reasonably representative day in terms of the
number of attacks across Iraq.

The unwillingness of the Bush administration to come clean on the
number of Americans wounded or killed in Iraq dishonors those soldiers
who have lost limbs, mind, or life itself. It represents a crime
against the public's right to know and is a clear violation of one
of the most cherished tenets of our founding fathers, namely, the role
of an informed public as a safeguard for our democracy. The
administration hypocritically pontificates about democracy across the
globe, but demonstrates at home just how willing it is to undermine
the very institution.

· · · · · ·

Undermining the "institution," eh? We're a tiny rampart against the invaders.

· · · · · ·

Notes

1. National Public Radio, All Things Considered, "Measuring Costs Of Iraq War," January 7, 2004. An excerpt is available online via NPR's Website, in the Archives, and available in full by purchase there. (back)

Don L. Durivan is a long-time student of foreign policy, and the processes that lead to war-making. He works professionally on both domestic and developing-world health care projects from his base in Massachusetts.

Do you wish to share your opinion? We invite your comments. E-mail the Editor. Please include your full name, address and phone number (the city, state/country where you reside is paramount information). When/if we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country.